Then your previous statement is wrong.
You are not supporting your assertion that present day libs are pro 2a. That was my point.
1 Like
How did you get “left having a majority pro 2a advocates” from “the right severely underestimates the number of pro 2A folks on the left.”?
I understand my assertion was vague, but just because its vague doesn’t mean you can make up more specific assertions and assign them to me. Some, not all, folks on the left are pro 2A. I have no idea if they make up a majority or infirmity of the left.
Not to mention I doubt there’s agreement on what constitutes being pro 2A… does that mean you support it literally as its written now? Could it mean you mostly support it but believe it should be modified?
These all or nothing attributions to people on the left, and the right for that matter, aren’t applicable. Political beliefs are too varied to broad brush.
1 Like
Still deflecting and misrepresenting what I have been posting. As stated in Braggs new policy, those committing felony robbery [PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), 160.10(2b)] will now be charged by the DA’s office with Petit Larceny, a misdemeanor, ". . . if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm.”
So, instead of deflecting and misrepresenting what has been posted simply admit the lunacy of Bragg’s new policy, which is also described in the following article: Manhattan shopkeepers fear DA Alvin Bragg’s new policies will increase crime
January 5, 2022
“Prosecutors were also instructed to downgrade felonies to misdemeanors in certain cases. For instance, suspects initially charged with armed robbery of a store would get hit with petit larceny instead, a misdemeanor, provided no victims were seriously injured and there was no “genuine risk of physical harm,” the memo states.”
As I correctly stated, criminals can now commit felony robbery, and the DA’s office will break the charge down to Petit Larceny, a misdemeanor, be issued a Desk Appearance Ticket and be back on the streets in a few hours to commit the same offense against the hard-working citizens of NYC and their families.
Why are you so intent on misconstruing and mischaracterizing what I have been posting about Bragg’s policy which coddles these criminals?
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their most formidable domestic enemy.
.
The claim was that someone who did some armed robbery would not be charged with much more than a desk appearance ticket.
That is false.
The burglary is still a felony.
Who claimed that? Certainly not me. Seems as though your above post Is another one of your crafty and intentional misrepresentations and a misdirection.
Is the New York Post article, which I quoted above, making stuff up?
You did. Right here
What I posted is not the interpretation you posted HERE Stop misrepresenting what I actually have posted.
What I posted is accurate. And you never answered the question: Is the New York Post article, which I quoted above, making stuff up? The article states:
“Prosecutors were also instructed to downgrade felonies to misdemeanors in certain cases. For instance, suspects initially charged with armed robbery of a store would get hit with petit larceny instead, a misdemeanor, provided no victims were seriously injured and there was no “genuine risk of physical harm,” the memo states.”
And what the article indicates, is exactly what I have been posting for quite some time.
Why are you so intent on misconstruing and mischaracterizing what I have been posting about Bragg’s policy which coddles these criminals?
JWK
This is the part that is wrong.
That is what I have been trying to tell you
Reducing the charge of using a weapon during a burglary is a separate charge from the burglary
The Burglary is still a Felony so someone charged with that would not be issued a desk appearance and go on to crime again… as what was written here.
Nothing I wrote in in error. And you still did not answer the following question.
Is the New York Post article, which I quoted above, making stuff up? The article states:
“Prosecutors were also instructed to downgrade felonies to misdemeanors in certain cases. For instance, suspects initially charged with armed robbery of a store would get hit with petit larceny instead, a misdemeanor, provided no victims were seriously injured and there was no “genuine risk of physical harm,” the memo states.”
I’ll bite…
What is wrong with not overcharging? That change seems very reasonable to me.
What don’t you like about it?
Overcharging? Bragg’s policy reduces felony robbery to Petit Larceny, a misdemeanor, and will allow these thugs to walk after given a DESK APPEARANCE TICKET.
Aside from that, this kind of crap has already proven to not be in the public’s best interests.
DAT Arrests
Bail reform expanded Desk Appearance Ticket criteria where arrestees are released pre-arraignment from the station house,
Looking at those who received DAT’s in 2020:
14.2% have been re-arrests at least once since their DAT vs 9.9% in 2019. (2,314 re-arrestees vs 1,482 re-arrestees in 2019.)
27% of those re-arrests were for 7 majors vs. 11.9% in 2019. (1,339 7 majors arrests vs 296 in 2019.)
Some of the new felony Desk Appearance Categories have higher failure to appear rates for court:
From January 1-April 30, 22% of Grand Larceny Auto arrestees that received a DAT failed to appear for arraignment.
For the same time period, 19.8% of felony drug arrestees that received a DAT failed to appear for arraignment.
So far this year, the Department has issued desk appearance tickets to 130 arrestees who committed Grand Larceny Auto versus none last year.
JWK
Yes it was. The scenario that was put forth would not happen.
An armed robbery would not result in a desk appearance since burglary is a felony.
The person that is telling you that it would be knocked down to petit larceny is either simply misunderstanding the policy or is lying to you.
How can burglary be a felony but armed robbery be a misdemeanor?
The answer … it isn’t.
People are charged with Burglary which is a Felony and the weapons charge is a misdemeanor if the weapon did not pose a credible threat during the robbery.
It is fine to disagree with the policy…. But one doesn’t have to make it more than it is.
This is confusing… why downgrade the weapons charge if there’s already a felony as a result of the burglary? I thought this policy was designed to rehabilitate and give them a second chance… if there’s already a felony charge it wouldn’t make much sense to downgrade since there will always be a felony charge on their record.
I see you still have not answered the question:
Is the New York Post article, which I quoted above, making stuff up? The article states:
“Prosecutors were also instructed to downgrade felonies to misdemeanors in certain cases. For instance, suspects initially charged with armed robbery of a store would get hit with petit larceny instead, a misdemeanor, provided no victims were seriously injured and there was no “genuine risk of physical harm,” the memo states.”
Here is exactly what Bragg’s new policy states:
a) An act that could be charged under PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), 160.10(2b), or 160.05 that occurs in a commercial setting should be charged under PL § 155.25 if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm.
Now, note that PL § 155.25 is Petit larceny and is a class A misdemeanor for which a Desk Appearance Ticket is issued, and the perp is out and about in a few hours.
Also note that PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4) and 160.10(2b), or 160.05 are felonies.
JWK
Well if you look at it, the downgrade only applies to circumstances where the weapon was not used in anyway that could be a threat.
I personally think that it is a silly standard… but it doesn’t mean that armed robbers are only going to get desk appearances.
As I have said… it is more than okay to disagree with the policy change.
There is no need to make ■■■■ up to so though.
The New York Post article is wrong.
Read the memo for yourself.
You will see why.
